RAJENDRA MIMANI Vs. POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for appointment of Arbitrator under Sec. 11 r/w Sec. 15 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator earlier appointed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 31/12/2021 had recused, therefore, the applicant has sought appointment of sole Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 45.2 of the agreement dtd. 5/8/2016. The order dtd. 31/12/2021 passed by Coordinate Bench in Arbitration Petition No.34 of 2021 is reproduced below:

(2.) Perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that learned counsel for the respondent had conceded that there is an arbitration agreement in the contract and the dispute is arbitrable. Paragraph no.3 of the said order reveals that learned counsel for the respondent had also suggested the name of Mr. Justice V.K. Bist for appointment as Arbitrator, therefore, with the consent of parties, Mr. Justice V.K. Bist was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

(3.) It transpires that respondent moved an application before the sole Arbitrator under Sec. 12(3)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was rejected by the Arbitrator, however, the Arbitrator, thereafter, recused from the matter and issued a letter dtd. 26/9/2023 to this Court, contents of the said letter are reproduced below: